I find it interesting that only 60% of those surveyed agreed that "Important skills like critical thinking, communications, and problem‐solving can be developed by studying advanced mathematics and English in high school," but 78% approved of the new teacher evaluation legislation.

"One of the prominent successes that surfaced during interviews and roundtables was that, for the first time, educators have clearer and more rigorous performance expectations and have an understanding of what constitutes great teaching. “Never before have teachers known what the expectations are,” an educator said. “Now they have a list and great guidance about what good teaching looks like.”"

Well, except for the 60% of teachers for whom 35% of their evaluation score is based on some *other* teacher's understanding of what constitutes great teaching. Or for whom 15% of their evaluation score is based on an arbitratry scoring indicator chosen by the immediate supervisor.

SCORE is so far up Huffman's ass that it's a wonder they can all breath.

Well, except for the 60% of teachers for whom 35% of their evaluation score is based on some *other* teacher's understanding of what constitutes great teaching. Or for whom 15% of their evaluation score is based on an arbitratry scoring indicator chosen by the immediate supervisor.

I think the fact that Huffman is as-we-speak producing a bill to "reform" the state's TEAM model, of which our local APEX model is an exact duplicate, kinda says it all.

And according to Huffman himself, that's 70% of teachers who do not teach either a tested subject or a tested grade level and must presently hitch their financial wagons to someone else's star.

Interestingly, I'm just back from Dr. McIntyre's State of the Schools address at Powell High, at which he continued to pitch via his PowerPoint presentation the APEX evaluation model (and that same strategic comp model, too, although he's for the first time citing a need to raise base pay across the board).

I did get an opportunity to ask Deakins, Kincannon, and Carson all why McIntyre continues to pitch the model, surely knowing that it is to be gutted this legislative session to the hopeful benefit of these 70% of teachers for whom it didn't work.

All three replied that Huffman is only "tweaking" the model.

As I see it, though, if it is to work differently for this vast majority of Tennessee's teachers, his proposed changes won't be "tweaks" at all. Changes that voluminous constitute an "overhaul."

We'll have to wait to see just what he's proposing now, but it seems to me a victory already that he's conceded this "data driven" model was little more than "garbage in, garbage out."

Another beef I've had with the TEAM/APEX evaluation model (and which I don't think we've discussed here) is that 10% of teachers' total points relate to whether they're teaching in any high-needs school.

However, there aren't enough teaching positions in high-needs schools for every teacher conceivably willing to teach in one to do so. In fact, given the volume of high-needs schools we have here in Knox County, only about half our local teachers could do so.

How, then, can we rationalize "docking" half our teachers this 10% of total possible evaluation points if these teachers lack the opportunity to earn these points by teaching in such schools?

This would be like you and me enrolling in some college course at which, on the first day of instruction, our prof advised us that, try as we might, even if every last one of us should produce "A" work, exactly half of us will be awarded just 90 points, or a "B." "Don't argue," our prof says, "that's just the way it is."

From inception of this TEAM/APEX model, I have failed to understand how this aspect of the formula may be explained or defended--nor have I yet read anything to indicate that Huffman's bill will address this deficiency.